Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
Entropy

Depletable Resources Poll

Depletable Resources  

356 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want it?

    • Yes!
      127
    • No, omfg, will ruin teh game!!1!
      193
    • I don't care.
      36


Recommended Posts

[...]but what price will iron have hit a month after this happens?

Whatever price people are willing to pay, just like today.

 

That sounds like the opinion of an executive in the gasoline industry.

lol, this is a game tho, not rl.

 

Prices for harvestables don't increase unless people are willing to pay. Some are willing to pay a premium for very large quantities and/or for a convenience factor. Occasionally players try to sell silver for 2.5 or toads for 2, some may pay those prices, many won't.

 

I think it is an incorrect assumption that depleting resources means the overall available quantities of harvestables will be significantly reduced subsequently inflating prices. I think it simply means our favorite harvesting spots will no longer be static.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is an incorrect assumption that depleting resources means the overall available quantities of harvestables will be significantly reduced subsequently inflating prices. I think it simply means our favorite harvesting spots will no longer be static.

 

I think we do not have sufficient information to make such statement. We don't know if this change would be "calibrated" in a way that our ability to harvest certain amount of resources in a time unit increase, decrease or will remain unchanged. If we knew that, the replies would have more merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is an incorrect assumption that depleting resources means the overall available quantities of harvestables will be significantly reduced subsequently inflating prices. I think it simply means our favorite harvesting spots will no longer be static.

 

I think we do not have sufficient information to make such statement. We don't know if this change would be "calibrated" in a way that our ability to harvest certain amount of resources in a time unit increase, decrease or will remain unchanged. If we knew that, the replies would have more merit.

 

 

Loosely based on this, but yeah, you're right. No idea exactly what "what is needed" means. What is determined should be available in game or what we currently use.

 

"3. The server will try to guestimate how much of each resource is needed. This will be a little tricky to implement, and would probably require a few days of self adjustments to get it right. It could also be based on the amount of people online.

4. The server will then divide the total quantity that is 'needed'*2 to the number of harvestible resources of that type. Some of the resources (map objects) that are not very used, such as those further from storages, will have a higher quntity."

Edited by lordchron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well then, easy solution for you to consider, Korrode

To bad what you've proposed isn't a solution to anything and you've failed to see that a 'solution' was not the point of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this as being asked to vote on something without answers to several key questions. Maybe the poll should not have been opened until there was enough time for these questions to be answered.

 

A few unclear/unanswered points raised so far:

1) In this post, "we can make rules against camping at resources" - but these rules are not at all explained, no implementation has been coded or tested. We have no way of knowing whether this solution would be effective, how it would affect families, etc..

 

2) New players are encouraged to begin skills like alchemy, usually by making fire essences. There are not all that many safe places to find sulfur. When a new player asks where to find it, s/he will not likely be very happy to finally find the sulfur in the Crystal Caverns, DP only to come up with a message "this resource is unavailable, come back at some unknown later time". If there is a solution for this, great, but I have not seen one identified.

 

3) An idea was mentioned for limitless resources on Isla Prima for players under some level (plus the possibility of storage access for new players as well). This may help new players to learn the ropes of EL, but could also be severely abused, once again depending on the implementation.

 

There is an inherent fear in the unknown, so when we are asked to choose between something we know, vs. something which could be better, or could be a lot worse, the safer bet is to vote for the known option.

 

We are charged to vote on what is essentially a mystery box. "Here's a box you've never seen before. Do you like whatever is inside?"

 

As of the time of this post, I have not yet voted in this poll.

Edited by asgnny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some open questions aswell onto this:

 

1) Since there have been various types of depletion in discussion, which one are we going for?

a) the "total" depletion (x ores/flowers/whatever are harvested from one spot and you won't get anymore until the counter is reset) or

B) the "soft" depletion, harvesting becomes slower the more is harved from that one spot

c) something else?

 

2) What about real distant resources or nonharvestable resources?

the server will have to take nonharvestable resources into account, basically for him it's still the same 3D object, so that has to be determined.

 

real distant harvestables: I'll try to make that clear by an example.

there are like 4 spots ingame for sapphires and diamonds I know of (maybe one or two more I didn't find yet).

One of those spots has sapphires, diamonds, rubies (not sure for emeralds): the cave of the red dragon!

Noone with a sane mind would go harvesting there, just to get some gems. Will this be taken into account or not?

 

If those questions are answered and taken care of, I think both me and others would have voted different than we did.

Edited by rauch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

 

I don't think depleting resources is a better solution, the problem which needs to be fixed is gold farming, but if the fix makes the game less fun for all and pushes people to quit it's clearly the wrong way to go.

 

Rehdon

 

that's the point.

 

I think we have to work first on the point of the gc farmers: solved this one, we can talk about furthers implementation (or radically modifications) in the game, without trying to hidden this objective in every implementation.

 

The gc farmers question have to be faced directly, without running around it. There is a black market problem, that sucks resources ($$) from the game (the game NEEDS $$ to live)? good. we can act like a real life governament: legalizing the black market into the game (with an NPC who act like a bank, I dunno, or via the official shop), appling real $$ fees on the transitions (yeah, a tax) and punishing who is discovered to exchange money outside the official channel (this can be monitored by the mods...if I have understood what they can see).

 

Solved this point, we can talk pacefully about how and when implementing new interesting things into our beloved game, like delpleting resources, multiplaying and so on. If we will continue to make suggestions on how to modify the game to run around the gc farmer's problem, we will not reach any place - as we say in Italy.

 

:whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea and can be done in a way that gives people a chance to keep the resources from being depleted. for instance a Strip Miner NPC could appear at a spot and start draining. if not killed/stopped or whatever in 5 minutes the resource could get depleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a thought. Maybe move npc and bots that buy harvestables away from them so harder to sell too? I have seen players go from harv to bot and back and forth for hours. Maybe put them all on one map? Perhaps one with no storage?

Edited by Dalli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just a thought. Maybe move npc and bots that buy harvestables away from them so harder to sell too? I have seen players go from harv to bot and back and forth for hours. Maybe put them all on one map?

 

i like it, a map with bots on, can be like a kind of market city to replace one of the maps no one goes to, shouldnt be too hard to set up and ive seen it too, specially in mm at the silver ore

Edited by Erossa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that many players don't really understand the proposed feature/update will mean.

Perhaps a more clear idea of what we can expect will give the players the opportunity to really decide what they want. Many players won't bother reading the thread posted in the first post. When you don't understand the idea, you can not make a decision about it either.

 

I voted yes,

Because I believe that when this idea is implemented, its implementation will be done with the greatest care. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we should forget teh poll and go to that other plan....500k gc to get this implemented and see who pays up for it. If not enough pay the price then it dont get added, saves all teh ball ache. Mind you, I concede it's probably an idea not to have prior collection funds from the previous implementation funds added to this one simply because there was some disagreements..start this one at zero and let old funds carry to the next one instead.

 

Well, the poll consistently shows, that majority of voters do not like it.

 

If you start collecting money FOR that change, lets start also collecting money AGAINST and implement it only when the FOR will be greater by 500kgc by the end of month (and publish balance regularry each day/hour).

 

Remember - majority voted AGAINST and you one-sided proposal would allow overvote majority by only small nunber of rich players.

 

Still i think that EL should be better directed at majority of players, than only at the few rich ones. At least Entropy still tell, that he want more newbies came and stand, not that he want to discard them as poor peons before some small part of ultra riches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the poll consistently shows, that majority of voters do not like it.

I disagree with this assessment. If you actually read the posts that go along with this poll, you will see that a majority of the voters who voted no (who posted) also said that if some of their concerns and questions were addressed favorably, they very likely would vote yes.

Also don't forget the "i don't care" people, that is not a no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also don't forget the "i don't care" people, that is not a no.

It's also not a yes. :D

Your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also don't forget the "i don't care" people, that is not a no.

It's also not a yes. :D

 

almost all of the "i dont care" people that posted here said they would have voted yes if more details were provided.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But there ARE unlimited amount of spawns silly... just not the ones you WANT to train on at that time :D

But there ARE unlimited iron ores silly... just not at the cost you WANT to pay... it's called the NPC. :P

 

We want X exp or drops p/h.

You want iron ore at X cost/time.

 

If, by your argument, it's fine for us to go train some creature that gives us way less exp or drops, then by the same argument it's fine for you to go buy the ore at the NPC, no?

 

You're so happy for us to sacrifice, so presumably you'll be happy for yourself to as well.

 

Well then, easy solution for you to consider, Korrode: who knows of the Monster Arena in FFX? Put something like that in EL for A/D'ers to go in and train to their heart's content - for a price. We pay for our iron, you pay for your baddies.

 

Shall we set the price for Male Goblins (unarmed) at 2K each? Obviously, a huge markup from where it should be, but what price will iron have hit a month after this happens?

 

Yes!!! My spawn vending machine idea is resurrected! You could have banks of them lined up. "Please use exact change". Out drops a spawn, aggro'd on you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are like 4 spots ingame for sapphires and diamonds I know of (maybe one or two more I didn't find yet).

One of those spots has sapphires, diamonds, rubies (not sure for emeralds): the cave of the red dragon!

Noone with a sane mind would go harvesting there, just to get some gems. Will this be taken into account or not?

Wait, you can get those gems OUTSIDE of rd cave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also don't forget the "i don't care" people, that is not a no.

It's also not a yes. :D

Your point?

My point is you can't count "I don't care" as an opinion. it shouldn't have been an option to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also don't forget the "i don't care" people, that is not a no.

It's also not a yes. ;)

Your point?

My point is you can't count "I don't care" as an opinion. it shouldn't have been an option to begin with.

lol I never said it was a yes, you are jumping up and down on the same side of the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also don't forget the "i don't care" people, that is not a no.

It's also not a yes. ;)

Your point?

My point is you can't count "I don't care" as an opinion. it shouldn't have been an option to begin with.

 

Sure you can, and you can add too all those players, who havent found this vote yet and would happily vote "Yes", we have only like 344 votes right now and how many active players with a forum account?

 

And dont forget those players, who dont have a forum account and would vote "yes" too, but cant for some unknown reasons.

 

Plus all the other players, who would love to play EL, if it has depletable resources, but can't because they dont know about EL, so they must play other games.

 

So, considering this all, the vote would end with 117% to 1%, and there you go :D

 

Piper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes. I think this has great potential once all the wrinkles are ironed out of it. But as usual I see more people voting against it than for it. I wonder if their vote is for the GAME or for themselves personally.

 

HOw will we know if an idea works if we don't at least try it. Instead of asking for a vote maybe Entropy should just implement it and tell us to vote in 30 days to keep it or nix it. People (not all but many) fear change.

Edited by Marikei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'I don't care' means I have no opinion. If you have no opinion, don't vote to begin with.

 

Or means they are not bothered if its ingame or its not, they will just get on with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×